Loading...
CLB Minutes 10/15/2003 R October 15, 2003 TRANSCRIPT OF THE MEETING OF THE CONTRACTORS' LICENSING BOARD Naples, Florida October 15, 2003 LET IT BE REMEMBERED, that the Contractors' Licensing Board, in and for the County of Collier, having conducted business herein, met on this date at 9:00 a.m. in REGULAR SESSION in Building "F" of the Government Complex, East Naples, Florida, with the following members present: CHAIRMAN: Les Dickson William Lewis David L. Beswick Sydney Blum Richard Joslin Kenneth Lloyd Eric Guite' Michael Baril ALSO PRESENT: Patrick Neale, Counsel to the Board Robert Zachary, County Attorney Thomas Bartoe, Licensing Compliance Officer Jim Hoopengarner, Licensing Compliance Officer Page 1 October 15, 2003 CHAIRMAN DICKSON: I'd like to call to order the meeting of the Collier County Contractors' Licensing Board. The date is October 15th, 2003. Any person that wants to appeal the decision of this board will need a verbatim transcript of the meeting, which should that be the case, you could see the court reporter and they could arrange that. Roll call starting from my right, please. MR. LEWIS: Mr. Lewis here. MR. BESWICK: Mr. Beswick here. MR. BLUM: Mr. Blum here. MR. JOSLIN: Richard Joslin. CHAIRMAN DICKSON: Les Dickson. MR. LLOYD: Ken Lloyd. MR. GUITE: Eric Guite'. CHAIRMAN DICKSON: Any additions or deletions to the agenda, Mr. Bartoe? MR. BARTOE: Good morning, Mr. Chairman, board members. For the record, I'm Tom Bartoe, Collier County Licensing Compliance Officer. Under new business, staff has one addition, Eligio Santos, Jr. The spelling is E-L-I-G-I-O, Santos, S-A-N-T-O-S, Jr., request approval to reinstate a tree trimming license. In June of'98, the board granted Mr. Santos' wife approval to be grandfathered with a complete application submitted, which she did, due to the fact that Mr. Santos had an unfortunate accident and was paralyzed and now he advises there are some extenuating circumstances, that he would like to get his license reinstated and I have advised him not to fill out an application until he comes before the board here. CHAIRMAN DICKSON: Okay. MR. BARTOE: And staff has no other additions or deletions. CHAIRMAN DICKSON: Okay. I need approval of the agenda with the addition. Motion, please. Page 2 October 15, 2003 MR. BLUM: Motion to approve. MR. JOSLIN: Joslin, second. CHAIRMAN DICKSON: All those in favor? (Unanimous votes of aye.) CHAIRMAN DICKSON: Approval of the minutes of the last meeting which is in your packet. I hope you've had time to look through that. MR. JOSLIN: Motion to approve. MR. LLOYD: Lloyd, second. CHAIRMAN DICKSON: All those in favor? (Unanimous votes of aye.) CHAIRMAN DICKSON: So approved. Nothing in discussion. New business, Julie Caron or Karen (sic). I don't see a Julie Caron here. We'll go on. Thomas Jardone, request to qualify a second entity. Mr. Jardone, if you would come to that podium right there. I need to have you sworn in, please. (Speaker was duly sworn.) CHAIRMAN DICKSON: I need for you to just briefly tell us what you're doing, why, and why the second entity. MR. JARDONE: Okay. The second entity that I'm trying to qualify is basically, we have a company that does high speed radios and through those high speed radios, it basically will deploy some Internet stuff and networking stuff and cameras. It will deploy, you know, video through these high speed radios. So basically if you have two buildings that need to be put together or some remote video or something that has to be put somewhere, we kind of deploy that video or that high speed data through radios that we mount on the side of a building, and of course, the reason why my license is kind of important here is because we have to run some CAT5 wire and some video wire and stuff like that inside walls and things of that nature, so that's kind of what this second entity's all about. It's more Page 3 October 15, 2003 of a high speed radio type transmission business. CHAIRMAN DICKSON: What company do you currently qualify? MR. JARDONE: AFC Electric -- or AFC Securlink, excuse me, which is part of AFC Electric. CHAIRMAN DICKSON: And the new company you're going to qualify? MR. JARDONE: Is Airnet and I -- you know, I am -- I have stock in that. I'm a, you know -- CHAIRMAN DICKSON: Yeah, 40 percent. MR. JARDONE: Yeah. CHAIRMAN DICKSON: Are the -- are the two companies, are they different, different companies, I mean? MR. JARDONE: Yes, absolutely. CHAIRMAN DICKSON: But do they do the same thing? MR. JARDONE: No, the AFC Securlink is more of an alarm company. They basically-- well, they do projects like Saturnia Lakes, they put all the alarm systems and structure wiring and stuff like that in places like that, you know, multi -- multi family homes and stuff. CHAIRMAN DICKSON: Questions from the board.'? MR. JOSLIN: Just a question for staff. What type of license is required to do this job? MR. BARTOE: For what? MR. JOSLIN: What type of license is required to do this job? MR. BARTOE: To do what? MR. JOSLIN: To do what he's doing with security, is it a security license? MR. JARDONE: Yeah, alarm contractor, low voltage. MR. JOSLIN: Low voltage license, is that what it is? MR. LLOYD: What is yOur role in the present business of-- MR. JARDONE: AFC? Page 4 October 15, 2003 MR. LLOYD: Yes, sir. MR. JARDONE: Basically I qualify them. I do some management for them as far as, oh, kind of coordinate some of their access control and their higher end stuff. MR. LLOYD: Are you an employee? MR. JARDONE: At this point, yes. CHAIRMAN DICKSON: What's hitting my button for me right now is what you're describing to me sounds a little bit bordering electrical? MR. JARDONE: Well, you mean as far as high voltage/low voltage? CHAIRMAN DICKSON: Yes, sir. MR. JARDONE: No, I don't see where that -- it's all low voltage. I'm sorry, let me recap. All this stuff that we do for the -- you're talking about Airnet, basically all we do is, there's low voltage transformers that are plugged in to power all this stuff, so it kind of falls under the same limited power as -- as any -- any alarm system basically but it's all plug-in transformer stuff. It's all low voltage. There's absolutely no high voltage that's wired to any of this stuff. If we put a radio in, it's a little, you know, 1 8 gauge wire that plugs the transformer into the wall to power this stuff, so it's all 18 volt or 12 volt. CHAIRMAN DICKSON: So you do none of the connection of the 1 10 or -- MR. JARDONE: Absolutely not, no, there's a receptacle there and we plug it in and that's it, just like an alarm system. CHAIRMAN DICKSON: And what license do you hold? MR. JARDONE: An alarm contractor low voltage license. CHAIRMAN DICKSON: Okay. MR. JARDONE: Which, you know, kind of falls under CCTV and a few other things. CHAIRMAN DICKSON: The other question I have for you, it Page 5 October 15, 2003 is a corporation; is that correct? MR. JARDONE: That's correct. CHAIRMAN DICKSON: Okay. And how many owners or how many stockholders? MR. JARDONE: Three. CHAIRMAN DICKSON: Three? MR. JARDONE: Uh-huh. CHAIRMAN DICKSON: And any employees? MR. JARDONE: There is one employee. CHAIRMAN DICKSON: Okay. Are you aware of the new workers' comp. law that went into effect October 1 st, this month? MR. JARDONE: No, I'm not. CHAIRMAN DICKSON: Okay. Mr. Neale, watch me here, but my understanding of the new workers' comp. law is, the only way you can be exempt or use an exemption that you, number one, be a corporation -- MR. JARDONE: Uh-huh. CHAIRMAN DICKSON: -- and you can only exempt three people and all three of those people have to own at least 10 percent or more of the stock of the corporation. MR. JARDONE: Okay. CHAIRMAN DICKSON: Are you clear on that? MR. JARDONE: Yes, and that would follow pretty much our guidelines there. We have three -- we have one employee that has workmen's comp. in my package, it has a workmen's comp. binder, and then the other three stockholders are exempt. CHAIRMAN DICKSON: Okay. Which, by the way, for you as a stockholder, the workers' comp. is so cheap, it's almost crazy not to have it. MR. JARDONE: Right. CHAIRMAN DICKSON: It doesn't make any sense. MR. JARDONE: Right, and I agree. We probably will find Page 6 October 15, 2003 ourselves doing that. Right now, we have -- obviously we're not licensed, so we're not doing anything, so we're trying to keep the expense to a minimum until we start moving along, but I agree 100 percent, the minute I stand on a job site or do anything, I would like to see myself have workmen's comp., of course, because God forbid anything should happen, even if I'm standing there. CHAIRMAN DICKSON: Mr. Neale, am I correct that we will no longer accept exemptions on sole proprietors/partnerships? MR. NEALE: I do want to research that issue, but I think you're probably correct on that. CHAIRMAN DICKSON: That's my understanding. MR. NEALE: Mr. Zachary and I will check that out before the next meeting. CHAIRMAN DICKSON: Any other questions of the board? County have any problem with this? MR. BARTOE: No, sir. CHAIRMAN DICKSON: No questions. I'm looking for a motion. MR. JOSLIN: I've looked through the packet and I see that the credit app. is in line, application seems to be in line, so I'll make a motion to approve. MR. GUITE: I'll second it. CHAIRMAN DICKSON: Any discussion? All those in favor? (Unanimous votes of aye.) CHAIRMAN DICKSON: Opposed? No. For all of you that are present including you, all of your paperwork is here today, so don't go see Maggie today. MR. JARDONE: Right. CHAIRMAN DICKSON: But she will have it tomorrow and she can get this taken care of for you. MR. JARDONE: Okay. Page 7 October 15, 2003 CHAIRMAN DICKSON: Wish you well. MR. JARDONE: Thank you. Very good. CHAIRMAN DICKSON: Thank you, sir. Jumping back up on the -- and I know this because you've got your picture on your packet, Julie Caron or Karen (sic), would you come forward to the podium, please? MS. CARON: Yes. CHAIRMAN DICKSON: How do you say your last name? MS. CARON: Caron. Well, it depends, if you say it in French, it's Caron. CHAIRMAN DICKSON: (Speaker was duly sworn.) CHAIRMAN DICKSON: your why I need to have you sworn in, please. I need for you, if you would, to state name. MS. CARON: Julie Caron. CHAIRMAN DICKSON: And who do you qualify now and do you need to qualify a second entity? MS. CARON: I qualify KBM Southcoast Enterprise Corporation. We're doing trim carpentry and I would like to qualify Star Coach, Incorporated to do cabinets. They are mostly -- well, the person in -- that would be working with the cabinets are already selling. They would like to install and I'm very confident we could do a good thing with that. CHAIRMAN DICKSON: Okay. Any questions of the board? What type of interest are you going to have in MR. JOSLIN: this new company? MS. CARON: MR. JOSLIN: this new company? MS. CARON: What type of-- What type of interest are you going to have in Well, they're going to give me 10 percent on the profits. I'm going to build some shares and we'll see from then. MR. JOSLIN: Are you involved yourself in actually the Page 8 October 15, 2003 construction work, cabinet work? MS. CARON: Yes. MR. JOSLIN: Really? MS. CARON: Yes. I don't look like it, but I am. MR. JOSLIN: No offense. CHAIRMAN DICKSON: Looking at the packet, Mr. Bartoe, I don't see anything on insurance. MR. BARTOE: I'm sure if she's presently licensed, she has insurance. CHAIRMAN DICKSON: Yeah, but for the new company. We could make a motion based upon that happening. MR. BARTOE: I would agree, if-- if it was me, I would not want to purchase it until I'm approved. CHAIRMAN DICKSON: I agree. You're presently working in Lee County; is that correct? MS. CARON: Yeah -- well, with my trim carpentry license? CHAIRMAN DICKSON: Uh-huh. MS. CARON: Probably the next step will be to do the same thing with Star Coach eventually if we need to. CHAIRMAN DICKSON: Any other questions of the board? If not, we would entertain a motion. Please note that we do need to make in the motion a stipulation for insurance being verified. MR. BESWICK: I'll move that we approve this application on the -- with the stipulation that the insurance be verified before the license is issued. MR. JOSLIN: Joslin, second. CHAIRMAN DICKSON: Any discussion? All those in favor? (Unanimous votes of aye.) CHAIRMAN DICKSON: Opposed? You are approved. We wish you well, but you did hear me tell them, tomorrow is when you can take care of this, not today. MS. CARON: I have to go to see Maggie -- Page 9 October 15, 2003 CHAIRMAN DICKSON: Contractor licensing over on Horseshoe. Yeah, you'll need to have verification of the insurance with the new company's name. MS. CARON: Yes. CHAIRMAN DICKSON: Okay? MS. CARON: Yes. CHAIRMAN DICKSON: Best of luck to you. MS. CARON: Thank you. CHAIRMAN DICKSON: Also under new business, it was an addition to the minutes for those that were not here, Mr. Santos is here to reinstate a tree trimming license. Is Mr. Santos present? MR. BARTOE: I do not see him and I personally advised him a few days ago of this meeting, so we'll give him a little while longer, I guess. CHAIRMAN DICKSON: Okay. Under old business, Frank Ragan, request to -- MR. BARTOE: He's here now, sir. CHAIRMAN DICKSON: Okay. Mr. Ragan, let me get this one first. Mr. Santos, you walked in at the perfect time. You're up. Would you come to the podium, please? Just a reminder for those on the board, the next order of business will be Mr. Ragan and that was in your packet last month that you were supposed to bring with you. Also Mr. Francis was in your packet last month. I hope you have those. If you don't, some of us that do can pass them around. Sorry for the delay. We have to wait for that microphone so it gets recorded. Mr. Santos, there's several new board members on this board, so I need for you to start with what happened and then your wife qualifying and where you are now and what you want to do. MR. SANTOS: Okay. My license for tree trimming, I had it while -- when I was walking, and after I had the accident, I turned it over to my wife and she went in front of all you, you know, Page 10 October 15, 2003 commissioners, right, and I was still in the hospital at the time, but now we decided to -- we're going to go our own way, you know, we're going to separate and I'd like to get -- see if I can get the license put back into my name again. CHAIRMAN DICKSON: Okay. Give us times when-- when did the accident happen? MR. SANTOS: In 1998. CHAIRMAN DICKSON: Okay. And your wife qualified it when? MR. SANTOS: Yeah, the-- like in-- in '98. MR. BARTOE: The board approved his wife to qualify the company June 18th, '98. CHAIRMAN DICKSON: Okay. And the company's been operating ever since your accident, correct? MR. SANTOS: Yes. CHAIRMAN DICKSON: Okay. Does the county have any problem with this? MR. BARTOE: 'No, sir. CHAIRMAN DICKSON: Yeah. MR. BARTOE: I don't know if, when he was originally licensed, if he was grandfathered or tested or what. MR. SANTOS: Yeah, I was grandfathered. CHAIRMAN DICKSON: How long ago was that? MR. SANTOS: About -- my accident was -- it's been like -- I think it's pretty close to ten years. Right when I started -- I think it's right when I started -- MR. BARTOE: I would roughly guess we've had this license for ten years. CHAIRMAN DICKSON: And the name of the tree service? MR. SANTOS: Dynamic Tree Service. CHAIRMAN DICKSON: Tamiami? MR. SANTOS: No, Dynamic. Page 11 October 15, 2003 CHAIRMAN DICKSON: So Mr. Bartoe, why did he need to come here? MR. BARTOE: Because he was originally grandfathered and his license expired because his wife was qualifying. CHAIRMAN DICKSON: Okay. Any direction, Mr. Neale? MR. NEALE: Well, as with-- as with any of these matters, the board can, within its discretion, note that the gentleman -- the testing would be superfluous because of his previous experience. You may want to inquire as to whether he's still been somewhat involved with the tree trimming business during the period from '98 until now so at least he's remained current on the -- on the issues regarding that license, but I think aside from that, if you feel that he still has the requisite experience and would have been grandfathered before, the board should find that there would be no need for additional testing or additional qualifications. CHAIRMAN DICKSON: Have you been active in the business? MR. SANTOS: Yeah, I go to work with the guys and -- CHAIRMAN DICKSON: What kind of accident did you have? MR. SANTOS: A tree accident. I fell out of a tree and I'm a quadriplegic from the chest down. CHAIRMAN DICKSON: Okay. And that's permanent? MR. SANTOS: Not for long. CHAIRMAN DICKSON: You're doing pretty good. MR. SANTOS: Yeah, I feel my legs and everything. I'm about to get up. MR. NEALE: This is a -- Mr. Bartoe, is this a tree removal and trimming license that we're -- MR. BARTOE: Right, correct. MR. NEALE: Just so that -- for the new members' edification and for the board's edification, what this license requires is 12 months experience with a passing grade on a two hour business and Page 12 October 15, 2003 law and then they are qualified to trim and remove trees and stumps, so that -- it's 12 months experience requirement and adequate business and law experience to run a business. CHAIRMAN DICKSON: Which he's -- yeah, okay. Any questions of the board? MR. BLUM: Is your wife not going to be involved in the business anymore, she's just going to go her own way, is that it? MR. SANTOS: Yes. MR. BLUM: You're going to take back control of the business you previously licensed in you name? MR. SANTOS: Yes, sir. MR. BLUM: How many people work for you at this time? MR. SANTOS: Two. MR. LLOYD: Have we had any complaints about this company? MR. BARTOE: No, sir. CHAIRMAN DICKSON: Mr. Neale, what do we need to do at this point, should we do a motion? MR. NEALE: Yeah, you need to do a motion to -- CHAIRMAN DICKSON: That the county can reinstate his license without the test? MR. NEALE: And do a finding of fact that because of previous experience, et cetera, that testing would be superfluous. I think that MR. BARTOE: I asked Mr. Santos to wait to submit a new completed application until we saw what the pleasure of the board would be. CHAIRMAN DICKSON: I understand. MR. LLOYD: So the motion needs to be the transfer of the license from his wife to him? MR. NEALE: No, it really needs to be that you're granting him the license based on the evidence presented that he has adequate Page 13 October 15, 2003 experience and knowledge in the field, that testing would be superfluous and that he may go forward and be granted a license. MR. SANTOS: Excuse me, can I say something? I've been doing the Collier County schools for the last seven years or more -- seven years, I've been doing all the Collier County schools, doing all the tree work for them, so -- and you can ask them too. CHAIRMAN DICKSON: So what we need is a motion from the board to allow this gentleman to go ahead and do an application to reinstate his license and we will waive the testing requirements? MR. NEALE: If I may, just in 1998 -- I just pulled up the notes that I have from the 1998 meeting and at that point in time, Mr. Santos had over ten years of experience in the tree service business, so if that assists the board in its deliberation. MR. LEWIS: Mr. Chairman, I certainly don't have any problem waiving the testing for Mr. Santos. I would be concerned as to what's going to happen to the other license that's already active for Dynamic and how we're going to change that around and we need to, in the packet, make sure that that gets situated to where we don't have two licenses out there for the same company. MR. BARTOE: Yeah, that's correct, we -- we would have to have her cancel her license or change it to a different company if he's going to get that company name. CHAIRMAN DICKSON: Correct, but you can have two licenses for one company. MR. BARTOE: You can, but-- CHAIRMAN DICKSON: I mean, that's purely legal. I have two licenses for my company. There's a primary qualifier and secondary qualifier. MR. NEALE: He would become the primary and she would become the secondary until they resolve it amongst themselves. MR. LEWIS: We just have to have the proper paperwork -- MR. NEALE: Right, that he would become the primary Page 14 October 15, 2003 qualifier, et cetera. CHAIRMAN DICKSON: Quite honestly, two licenses for a company is good business, especially if something happens to the primary qualifier, the company continues, so -- smart way to do things. MR. BLUM: Maybe I misunderstood. Will she still be involved in the business at all? So she will have her own business and yet she got the license by lieu of him not being able to -- to physically do it, she -- on her own right, she would have to get her own license, I would think, if they're no longer affiliated. MR. NEALE: She was granted a license. I'm looking to see if I can find what, if any, stipulations there were placed on that license. MR. BLUM: Did she have to qualify herself MR. NEALE: I believe she did, and what I would say is that -- just for the board's edification, if she's been doing this for five years now, she-- MR. BLUM: Okay. CHAIRMAN DICKSON: Are you going to open up your own tree service? MS. SANTOS: Am I? I wasn't planning on it. CHAIRMAN DICKSON: No. Okay. MR. JOSLIN: I'll make a motion -- MR. LLOYD: Go ahead, you can make it. I was just going to make a motion that we approve reinstatement of the tree trimming license for Mr. Santos with -- CHAIRMAN DICKSON: Waive the test. MR. LLOYD: And with that, we waive the testing requirement. CHAIRMAN DICKSON: Yeah, they have to go through county at this point. MR. BARTOE: He'll have to submit a completed packet. CHAIRMAN DICKSON: Okay. MR. BARIL: Second, Baril. Page 15 October 15, 2003 CHAIRMAN DICKSON: Okay. Let's restate the-- MR. LLOYD: I'll restate the motion that we approve the reinstatement of the tree trimming license and waive the testing requirement for Mr. Santos and he will submit an application packet to the county office. MR. BARIL: Second. CHAIRMAN DICKSON: Any discussion? MR. LEWIS: Only in wording, whether we should word the motion as a license, we're not granting a license, just waiving the testing requirements. MR. NEALE: Correct. MR. LEWIS: Could we modify the motion? MR. LLOYD: Agree to the modification. MR. BARIL: I amend the second. CHAIRMAN DICKSON: Okay. Modification has been agreed to and seconded. Any other discussion? All those in favor? (Unanimous votes of aye.) CHAIRMAN DICKSON: Opposed? Mr. Santos, you are approved, but you understand that at this point, you do a full packet, work with the contractor licensing office, we're waiving the testing requirements for the reinstatement. You don't have to come back before this board, okay? MR. SANTOS: Okay. Thank you. CHAIRMAN DICKSON: We wish you very well. Next we have Mr. Ragan. Would you come forward? I think you're going to need to go to that podium. I need you on the microphone. (Speaker was duly sworn.) CHAIRMAN DICKSON: State your purpose and what you're qualifying. Does everyone have a packet on Mr. -- did they bring them? MR. BARIL: No. CHAIRMAN DICKSON: No? Okay. He was on the agenda Page 16 October 15, 2003 last month. Can he look on -- everybody else okay? You're presently qualifying Eagle Windows and Sliding Glass Doors? MR. RAGAN: Yes, sir. CHAIRMAN DICKSON: And you want to qualify Frank R. Ragan, Incorporated? MR. RAGAN: Myself. CHAIRMAN DICKSON: Yes, sir. Tell us what you're doing and why. MR. RAGAN: I'm just temporarily qualifying Eagle Windows and Sliding Glass Doors because he's in the process of testing himself and with intentions -- I didn't activate my license before they had the change in the workmen's comp. laws two years ago, I think, and I'm just finally getting around to doing it for myself. CHAIRMAN DICKSON: Doing the same thing though? MR. RAGAN: Correct. CHAIRMAN DICKSON: So you will continue to qualify Eagle Windows and Sliding until he gets his own license? MR. RAGAN: Right, correct. MR. JOSLIN: Just for the record, I'd like to just state that I know this gentleman personally as a friend and as a business person. CHAIRMAN DICKSON: We won't hold that against him. MR. RAGAN: Actually, I want to get into manufacturing, but I just have to do this in the meantime to keep some cash flow. CHAIRMAN DICKSON: I understand. MR. BLUM: So eventually, you'll have nothing to do with Eagle? MR. RAGAN: Not really. I'd advise them if they have any questions, but they've been doing it long enough, they -- they're doing a great job. CHAIRMAN DICKSON: County have any complaints or problems? MR. BARTOE: Not that I'm aware of, sir. Page 17 October 15, 2003 CHAIRMAN DICKSON: Any questions of the board? What license is this? MR. RAGAN: It's a general glass and glazing license. CHAIRMAN DICKSON: General glass and glazing? Okay. MR. RAGAN: It's for anything four stories or less. CHAIRMAN DICKSON: If there's no discussion or no questions, I need a motion. MR. JOSLIN: I'll make the motion that we grant Mr. Ragan a second entity license. MR. BLUM: Second. CHAIRMAN DICKSON: Discussion? MR. LEWIS: Mr. Chairman, I see that there's no insurance certificates or anything, if we could amend the motion to make sure that the packet is completed and verified by the staff?. MR. RAGAN: I have a copy of the liability, but I don't have the workers' comp. which was faxed to Maggie. They wouldn't fax it to me. MR. LEWIS: If staff could check that? MR. RAGAN: I have that copy here if you need it. CHAIRMAN DICKSON: Is that amendment okay? MR. JOSLIN: I'll amend the motion. CHAIRMAN DICKSON: Second okay? MR. BLUM: Second. CHAIRMAN DICKSON: Any other discussion? All those in favor? (Unanimous votes of aye.) CHAIRMAN DICKSON: You are approved. well. MR. RAGAN: Thank you. Do you need a copy of this insurance? CHAIRMAN DICKSON: No, sir, give that to Maggie. MR. BARTOE: Mr. Ragan, you cannot take care of that at Motion amended has been seconded. We wish you Page 18 October 15, 2003 Horseshoe Drive until tomorrow, then you can show all your · insurance to Maggie. MR. RAGAN: Okay. Thank you very much. CHAIRMAN DICKSON: Mr. Neale, you had told me that you thought it was appropriate on Mr. Santos' case for us to do an order of the board and I didn't do that. MR. NEALE: I think it's adequate, but as long as you -- because I think there's an adequate finding of fact on the record that we can go forward, particularly since it's, you know, backed up by past testimony and past evidence, so I think the board had an adequate record to make that finding. CHAIRMAN DICKSON: Okay. Under public hearings, Arthur Wayne Francis, are you present? MR. ROBERTS: No, Wayne Francis is not. I'm Dave Roberts with the.company U.S. Insulation. CHAIRMAN DICKSON: All right, sir, if you would come forward to the podium. I need for you to state your name and to be sworn in. MR. ROBERTS: My name's Dave Roberts. (Speaker was duly sworn.) CHAIRMAN DICKSON: Okay. Tell us your relationship to Mr. Francis and why you're here. MR. ROBERTS: Well, Mr. Francis is our qualifier. CHAIRMAN DICKSON: Can you talk into the mike? MR. ROBERTS: Wayne Francis is the qualifier for U.S. Insulation Group and I'm the divisional manager and the reason I'm here is, we had a subcontractor dispatched out of our Fort Myers facility into Collier County without the proper licensing. CHAIRMAN DICKSON: So there's no defense, are you pleading or what? MR. ROBERTS: Well, I don't know, I mean, you know, we realize the mistake that was made on our part and we were just Page 19 October 15, 2003 summoned to come here to address it. CHAIRMAN DICKSON: Was it a summons or just a -- MR. ROBERTS: You know what, I'm really not sure. I have a letter from Maggie here. MR. ZACHARY: Mr. Chairman, Robert Zachary with the County Attorney's Office. We have a citation for Arthur Wayne Francis, so I think we really do need Arthur Wayne Francis here to answer his citation. I'm not sure why the -- this gentleman showed up other than perhaps he was given service, but since the citation does cite Arthur Wayne Francis, I believe we need to get him served and get him here before the board. CHAIRMAN DICKSON: If they want to contest it. MR. ZACHARY: If we want to proceed with -- MR. LLOYD: If they want to contest it, then he needs to be here. Otherwise, they pay the fine and -- MR. ROBERTS: I don't think we want to contest anything. We know the wrong that was done. We need to make it right. MR. NEALE: Then they're no longer contesting the citation and they're going to pay the $500, so the board needs to take no action. CHAIRMAN DICKSON: Just for your edification, by the amount of the fine, this is the second or third time this has happened? MR. ROBERTS: Correct. CHAIRMAN DICKSON: So we will assume that the citation is not being contested. MR. BARTOE: Mr. Chairman? CHAIRMAN DICKSON: Yes. MR. BARTOE: A letter from U.S. Insulation Group to our office dated July 18th, 2003, please accept this letter as a formal request for a hearing regarding the charges incurred on June 26th, 2003. We wish to appear before the licensing board at your convenience to appeal these charges and it's signed by a Mr. Clifford Page 20 October 15, 2003 Barfield of the U.S. Insulation Group in Pompano Beach. MR. ROBERTS: And that letter was put out before we got all of our facts in a row and educated on who could go where and who couldn't. There was a mishap again with a Fort Myers installation crew that was sent -- a customer purchased her merchandise in Fort Myers, but the job was actually in Marco Island. CHAIRMAN DICKSON: So you've corrected the problem, you're going to pay the fine and go on your -- MR. ROBERTS: Exactly. CHAIRMAN DICKSON: That's wonderful. So there's no action of this board? MR. NEALE: No. CHAIRMAN DICKSON: I appreciate your time for coming. MR. ROBERTS: Thank you very much. MR. BARTOE: I think, sir, it's wonderful too because staff would have recommended $1,000 fine. CHAIRMAN DICKSON: Well, and the fact of it is, ii's divisional and we couldn't do anything, but I assume he traveled a long way, so -- MR. BARTOE: This is the fourth time for that company, second time for this qualifier. CHAIRMAN DICKSON: Oh, been down this road before. MR. BARTOE: They have paid the other ones. I don't know why we received that letter in July. CHAIRMAN DICKSON: Well, at least now everyone in the company is aware of the problem, so maybe it will get -- MR. BARTOE: I think they knew when they hired this sub that Marco Island was not in Lee County. MR. NEALE: It used to be in 1927. MR. BARTOE: I'm sorry? MR. NEALE: In 1927, it was. CHAIRMAN DICKSON: Was it really? I wouldn't argue with Page 21 October 15, 2003 you, not anybody who brings up minutes from 1998 on -- MR. NEALE: You'd be amazed what I have in here. CHAIRMAN DICKSON: Under reports, do we have any? MR. BARTOE: I was advised this morning that Mr. Nonnenmacher advised you people last month that he would provide you information on the new Jim Walters issue with the state. CHAIRMAN DICKSON: Can you add to this, Mr. Bartoe? MR. BARTOE: I'm sorry? CHAIRMAN DICKSON: Can you add to this? I remember the discussion, but I don't remember where it was going. MR. LLOYD: Just elaborate a little bit on the Jim Walters -- I'm not familiar with it at all. MR. BARTOE: The underlying part with the asterisks is new in section 489.117 and staff is more or less interpreting that that a general building or residential contractor can hire anybody to help them, doesn't have to be licensed. MR. JOSLIN: That's what I read. MR. BLUM: Who's Jim Walters? MR. NEALE: Jim Walters was a manufactured home producer and there are segments of Florida law that were put in there essentially at the direction of Mr. Walters due to his political influence to permit a lot of the things to be done on, at the time, manufactured homes by unlicensed contractors as far as setup and things like that and it's -- it's become a generic term of art since then. CHAIRMAN DICKSON: And he is pretty much nationwide. He used to have an operation here. He does not anymore because manufactured homes in Collier County didn't seem to go very well. MR. JOSLIN: So reading this, in essence, there is no longer a need for licenses? I mean, if any general contractor wants to build a house or a townhouse, he can just hire people off the street to go do the work? MR. LLOYD: The rationale behind Jim Walters' business is Page 22 October 15, 2003 that he puts up the shell and then you or anybody can go in and put the walls, electrical, plumbing, you put that in yourself and you don't have to be contracted to do it. That's how his business got started. MR. NEALE: What this basically says is that anybody basically can do the specialty contracting pieces as long as there's a general contractor on the original permit without having a contract with that general contractor, so the homeowner or whoever can bring them in and have them do the work and it's really a pretty -- if you look at it, supervision does not require the existence of any kind of a direct contract between the certified, registered general -- or registered general, building or residential contractor and the person who does the specialty contracting, so the specialty contractors can come in there just without any true contract between them and the general. CHAIRMAN DICKSON: But I don't see any restriction, in what I'm reading here, Mr. Neale, any restriction to manufactured housing. MR. NEALE: There's not. It's single family residences including townhouses. CHAIRMAN DICKSON: Right. Has this been proposed or it's passed? MR. NEALE: This, I believe, has passed. We will -- we will confirm that. CHAIRMAN DICKSON: And I'm sure the homebuilders' association did not lobby against it. Why would they? MR. NEALE: Yeah, the addition, as far as we can tell, as used in this paragraph, supervision -- let me look at prior 489.117. CHAIRMAN DICKSON: If this be the case, I see it doing away with all licensing. MR. JOSLIN: Exactly. MR. BLUM: They don't need us anymore. MR. LEWIS: I don't read it that way, you know, you've got to Page 23 October 15, 2003 look back up to 489.105-3(b), there are certain licenses that are required by the state and that's what this is saying, anything -- any person who is not required to obtain registration or certification pursuant to 489.105, so anything in 489.105 that requires a license, you still have to be licensed. The general can't hire unlicensed activity there. Now, anything in specialty such as what Collier County has gone above and beyond, like tree trimming or anything of that sort that are specialty licenses that are not in -- MR. BARTOE: Painting, tile. MR. LEWIS: Painting, tile, exactly. MR. NEALE: But if you're in D through O of 489.105, you still have to be licensed, so if you're one of the -- that includes drywall and things like that, and as Mr. Lewis correctly points out, it's only the -- really the locally licensed trades. The big addition in here is that last sentence because I've got the previous edition of 489 in here and the big change is the addition of the sentence, supervision does not-- shall not be deemed to require the existence of a direct contract between the certified or registered general, et cetera, et cetera. That was not in there before. So before, the supervision was probably going to be interpreted as requiring a direct contract between those non-required to be registered or local contractor specialties and the general, whereas now, there is no required contract. So what's confusing to me, and I'm going to have to think about it a little bit is, they still have to be under the supervision of that registered contractor though. It does not waive the requirement for supervision, it just waives the requirement for a direct contract between them. MR. LLOYD: I don't interpret it that way. I understand -- I interpret it that the general contractor is licensed to be acknowledged as part of this project, but he or she could be somewhere else while this work is going on and there could be -- there could be no contact Page 24 October 15, 2003 between the general and the person performing the work. MR. NEALE: That -- you know, the interesting thing is, it says they have to -- they still have to be under the supervision of the contractor, but they don't have to have a contract with the contractor. MR. LLOYD: And what constitutes supervision if I'm in-- you know, I'm in Lauderdale and I'm on the contract, do I have to physically be on the site of this house? MR. NEALE: That's something that people like Mr. Zachary and I would spend a lot of time in court finding out what supervision actually meant. It is confusing. already confusing section. CHAIRMAN DICKSON: definitions? It's added more confusion to an Does 489 have the glossary of MR. NEALE: It has definitions. I'll have to see if it -- I don't believe it defines supervision though. It defines contracting, which contracting they define as doing something under a contract, which you know -- CHAIRMAN DICKSON: And then my next question is, how does this affect the enforcement of county ordinance for working without a license when they may fall under this as a defense? MR. NEALE: You know, the interesting thing is in some ways, it puts a lot more burden -- if you want to look at it from this side, you know, looking at the other end, it may put actually more burden on the contractor who pulls the permit because he now has potentially unlicensed specialty contractors working on a job under his supervision without any contractual responsibility to that general contractor. So I don't know, if I were a general contractor-- if I were the counsel for a general contractor, I don't think I would recommend that he allow this to go on on a job that he's running because all of a sudden, if this unlicensed, according to this here, can be unlicensed specialty contractor messes up the job, this board could come after the general because he had committed fraud in contracting or, you Page 25 October 15, 2003 know, mismanagement in contracting because he was responsible for the supervision, even though he had no contractual relationship between himself and that unlicensed specialty, so you know, it appears to -- to make it a lot easier, but to some extent, you know, as I say, if I were counsel for a contractor, I would find it hard to say, sure, let all these unlicensed subs come in there and contract directly with the owner because, you know, they're just under your supervision, but they're still under that contractor's supervision and it's very clear that if you are a contractor on a job and you're supervising it and something goes wrong on it, at the end of the day, it's your responsibility because you're the one that pulled the permit. MR. LLOYD: But then it -- you're saying that supervision links to responsibility for? In other words, as a general contractor, you are responsible because you are the supervisor, you are responsible for what this unlicensed sub does? MR. NEALE: Because you are engaged in the process of contracting and you contracted for a job that requires these other things to be done. I mean, that argument can certainly be made. You can make the contrary argument, but -- MR. BARTOE: And it's your permit and that makes you responsible. CHAIRMAN DICKSON: Okay. MR. NEALE: If you pulled the permit and you've got unlicensed subs running around doing things on that permit -- MR. LEWIS: Which correct me if I'm wrong, but this is not really something new, this has been this way at least for a while? MR. NEALE: It's been this way, but they -- you know, it was interpreted that there had to be a contract between the contractor doing the supervision and these unlicensed subs. It now says that there doesn't have to be that contract anymore, so to some extent, yes, it allows more freedom for the -- for the general because he can allow the owner to contract directly with these people and as long as Page 26 October 15, 2003 they're under supervision, they can operate without a license, but he has no control over them except he's got to supervise them, but how do you supervise somebody if you don't have a contractual relationship that says you can tell them what to do? CHAIRMAN DICKSON: Mr. Zachary, do you see any change in the way we enforce the county ordinance? MR. ZACHARY: Since this is new and there's probably no cases or anything to research, my interpretation is that the county has always had-- hasn't always, but is authorized to have specialty contractors. We have county licenses, and what I see here in the change is that we can still require specialty licenses with the ones that we do, it's just changed the fundamental relationship between a general and those specialty contractors, so I don't think that we're -- we've returned to the wild west where we have -- the general could just go hire anybody. I still think he's got to hire a licensed contractor for that particular work that he's got the overall supervision for, but it's -- it's redefined that we're -- what he has to do is supervise them. He no longer has to -- is required -- not required -- he no longer needs to have a contractual relationship with the subs. It means he can hire anyone, but I don't think that means that he can hire anyone at all, he has to hire anyone that is -- has a county license for a specialty contractor, so that's the interpretation that I have. MR. NEALE: And what I see is it does say that anybody not in D through O doesn't have to have a license to perform that function because it's waived under this. MR. LEWIS: Under a general contractor? MR. NEALE: As long as they're operating under a general contractor. MR. LEWIS: MR. NEALE: And he has to approve their operation? He has to approve their operation, but he doesn't have to have a direct contract with them. CHAIRMAN DICKSON: Well, how do you approve their Page 27 October 15, 2003 operation if you don't have a contract, the fact that they're on your job? MR. NEALE: Yeah, that, to me, as I say, if I were sitting in the -- and this is a preliminary look, obviously I haven't had any -- much real time to think about it, but if I were advising a general contractor, I think I would advise them to make sure they had those direct contracts. CHAIRMAN DICKSON: I think we need direction from county legal. MR. NEALE: Yeah, I think we need to look at this a little bit. CHAIRMAN DICKSON: And county legal needs to tell not only us what our direction should be on these -- we're defining it to specialty licenses of Collier County? MR. NEALE: Uh-huh. Well, the way it reads is -- CHAIRMAN DICKSON: We need direction on enforcement, we need direction on future action. Do you agree? MR. NEALE: Yeah, because the preliminary reading that I have on it is that what it does is it -- it does broaden the ability of people to not -- not to be required to have a license to do things that the county would require to have a license as long as they operate under the, whatever this means, supervision of a general contractor because it specifically waives any non -- people who are not required to be registered from having a license. MR. LEWIS: And I believe part of what was said earlier about the Jim Walters syndrome, it's probably part of that. In other words, a lot of homebuilders will do allowances for certain items, for carpet or tile. A lot of homeowners would want to go in and install their own carpet and tile. Prior to this, they had to be licensed or employees of the contractor. They couldn't do it on their own under -- without a contract to the -- to the contractor, so you know, they couldn't pull their own permit on a new home to do that. Same thing with condominiums, you know, a lot of condominiums when they're Page 28 October 15, 2003 built, they don't do a finish-out on them, they just do the primer, finish and ready to go. The owners would then hire their own subcontractors to come in and do the work. Well, now if they want an unlicensed sub, which shame on them if they do, if they want an unlicensed painting contractor or tile contractor or carpet installer, they can do that under the general's supervision and under his permit. MR. NEALE: Yeah, I think that's a good analysis. CHAIRMAN DICKSON: But I'm trying to stay on point for one issue, and the one issue being Contractor's Licensing Board. From what I read right now, number one, has it passed? If so, when did it pass? Number two, direction for the county in enforcement and immediate direction because otherwise, you know how often we're watched, I see 600 people in here next meeting protesting citations because that's about how many are going out each month. MR. NEALE: Yeah. Well, the one thing that Mr. Zachary and I are going to do between now and the next meeting is, we're going to review all of the legislative changes since we think the legislature is probably through with special sessions where they're not going to address 489 anymore and we're going to review 489 as it's been revised by this latest legislative session. Mr. Zachary says that there's a number of provisions. What did you say, 40 some? MR. ZACHARY: I didn't count. MR. NEALE: But a number. There always are, and we're going to go through and review those and see what impact they have on this board and report back next month. CHAIRMAN DICKSON: But I don't think this one can wait until next month. MR. NEALE: Well, we'll take a look at it as soon as we can and we'll get back with staff on it. CHAIRMAN DICKSON: Have you brought this to Mr. Perico's attention? MR. BARTOE: I believe it has been, yes? Page 29 October 15, 2003 CHAIRMAN DICKSON: Would you confirm that? I'd like to confirm that and have Mr. Perico get with county legal because can you see the string of people coming in here? MR. BARTOE: Yes, I can see that. CHAIRMAN DICKSON: Well, from what I understand right now, it's a valid defense. MR. BARTOE: That's why it was brought up. MR. JOSLIN: One question, is the homeowner -- let's just break it down to Jim Walters. This was, I guess, years ago when Jim Walters came out, for a homeowner, someone that buys a house from Jim Walters, to be able to do his own work, right, and hire people off the street or whatever you -- MR. NEALE: Yeah, hired helpers basically. MR. JOSLIN: But now it's tied over to -- the terminology coming out of here is saying residential contractors. There's some restrictions, but is there a way to define what that really means? Maybe they don't mean residential contractor, maybe there's some things that we're missing. MR. LLOYD: And I'm not sure, but I'll give you what my opinion is on this, when you buy a Jim Walters home, that representative of that company is your general contractor and he puts the shell or she puts the shell on your property. From that point on, technically then they're operating as the general contractor and the homeowner could do the work. MR. JOSLIN: You're talking about Jim Walters? MR. LLOYD: Jim Walters specifically. MR. BLUM: But if the homeowner did the work and contractually entered into an arrangement, if you will, with a specialty Collier County licensed -- or a specialty contractor, we require that that guy, to do work, has got to be licensed whether the GC does or not. MR. LLOYD: But the general contractor could hire you as a Page 30 October 15, 2003 homeowner to do your own specialty area, say an area that doesn't require a specialty license, I, as a homeowner, can do the work under this general contractor's, quote, supervision, whatever that might be. Whether the quality is there or not, the general contractor is going to allow -- could allow this to happen because I'm working for Jim Walters, I don't want to lose this house deal because -- MR. BLUM: Does the inspection process still have to go forward? MR. LLOYD: I would think so. I would think code would have to be met, sure. MR. BLUM: If it's a code inspection, I think we'd catch an awful lot of them right there whether they are or aren't covered by whoever or-- MR. LLOYD: It comes back to his point -- to Mr. Dickson's point, say it doesn't meet code, now we contest -- now we have a violation and we're going to have this person working on his or her own home saying wait a second, I was under the supervision of this general contractor. CHAIRMAN DICKSON: Well, now we're taking -- MR. LLOYD: Where does it go? CHAIRMAN DICKSON: One at a time. Stop. We're taking it too far. We're not talking about a code issue because the code issue would be under the responsibility of the general contractor and that's where it would fall. What we're coming up with is a citation issue for working without a license and those are the majority of your citations, and the majority of your citations being without a license, if they're outside of the premise of D through O, at this point right now, can be contested based on this -- MR. NEALE: Well, only if that-- because the majority of citations, at least my memory of them, the majority of the citations that staff issues are for non-general construction type jobs. They're for the painter who is painting without a license, they're for the carpet Page 31 October 15, 2003 installer who's installing carpet without a license, those kinds of things which wouldn't fall under this because that person is not under the supervision of a general contractor, they're contracting directly with the owner of the property to do something not involved in the construction of the home. CHAIRMAN DICKSON: Most of the ones they catch are on new construction jobs. MR. HOOPENGARNER: If I could, sir, being an investigator, we do go on construction sites to the general contractor in charge of that job. We do investigate carpet layers, tile layers, painters to make sure they are licensed and we do issue quite a few tickets on these construction sites for being unlicensed. MR. NEALE: I would say in -- well, Mr. Zachary and I will get with staff in the next few days, those type situations, because of this, those citations may be -- may be in doubt. CHAIRMAN DICKSON: So would you recommend that they quit writing them until we resolve this? MR. NEALE: I represent the board. I'll have to defer to county and legal staff on that one. MR. ZACHARY: And I guess that depends on how long you want to be here next month, it's as simple as that. I -- this is -- the interpretation that I had, I mean, I'll still go back and read it, yeah, I think we should go ahead and continue with the status quo until we make a determination and look at the legislative history because I don't think this is written exactly -- not written very well, so I want to go back with Mr. Neale and see what was in the minds of the legislature when they passed this to see if we -- if it really means what we think it says, you know, off the top of our heads right here. That's -- CHAIRMAN DICKSON: Yeah. Any further discussion? MR. LLOYD: I just agree that I think we need to continue with the citations because you still need to send the message that -- Page 32 October 15, 2003 as -- MR. NEALE: And that's what Mr. Zachary -- MR. LLOYD: I just wanted to reconfirm that I agree with that MR. NEALE: And I would propose that sometime within the next week to ten days, staff and Mr. Zachary and I will sit down and hash this over. We'll do some research on it ahead of time and see if we can see what the legislature has done for us here. MR. LLOYD: Or to us. CHAIRMAN DICKSON: And we don't even know if it passed, right. MR. NEALE: We'll have to research that to see if it actually -- MR. HOOPENGARNER: It has passed. MR. NEALE: Did it become part of the law? CHAIRMAN DICKSON: Any other discussion on that? Also under reports from last meeting, Mr. Neale, Mr. Zachary, you were going to make a presentation to the board? MR. NEALE: Yeah, we'll make a brief presentation, but we just wanted to lay out briefly what -- what the role of the Contractor Licensing Board is and what your responsibilities and duties are in a very short fashion. Everyone here, I think by now, realizes that the board is created under the auspices of chapter 489 of the Florida Statutes, which is the contracting law, and under the Collier County ordinance, which you'll all have a copy of by next meeting and this is 90-105 as amended, unfortunately, our system of numbering ordinances here, we start with one and we keep it forever, so it's actually 02-21 is the ordinance we're operating under, but it's referred to as 90-105 as amended. The board really has five primary duties. The one that probably has the most impact on the community is that you act as the administrative tribunal for the violations of the contractor licensing ordinance by locally licensed and state registered contractors because you can also enforce against state registered. In that, the board Page 33 October 15, 2003 actually acts as the trier of fact on these matters. I act as your legal counsel on that and provide you legal advice on what I believe the legal issues are to the best of my ability. In those kind of matters -- the reason there's two of us sitting here, just to get to that is, it was determined several years ago that in these type boards, contractor licensing, code enforcement, that the board needed independent representation from the county because the county is acting, in effect, as the prosecutor and you're acting as the judge and jury and so there needed to be some split between that because there was a conflict of interest when it was one attorney doing both things, so that's why I'm sitting here as the separate counsel for the board, and in those matters, the board hears the matters to some extent in a manner like a trial being held in a courtroom. The way the proceeding goes, and those of you that have been through it, this is going to be old hat, but those of you who haven't, it may be enlightening, is essentially you put it on like a trial. Each side presents an opening statement, each side presents their case in chief, they're permitted rebuttal, closing arguments and then the board closes the hearing and goes into deliberation. The board then has two different phases in the deliberation. Number one is to decide whether the violation was actually committed, and then number two, to decide what the penalty may be. The penalties are pretty broad as far as what this board can impose. It can impose everything from a written reprimand, a verbal reprimand all the way up to taking away the contractor's license and fines of up to $5,000 and restitution. So the board really does have pretty broad reaching powers, and under that, one of the reasons that it's very important is because the board does have the ability to take away someone's livelihood, that's a pretty awesome power to have, that you can sit up there and say to someone, you've been a bad enough contractor that I'm going to take away your ability to make a living doing what you've spent however Page 34 October 15, 2003 many years doing, and the board has always taken this on as a very serious responsibility and I know this group does too, and because of that, the burden of proof that is required for those kind of matters where you can take away someone's license is higher than that for a standard civil trial. Civil trial, it's the scales, 51/49, anything more on one side than other, the side that has more wins. In this, it has to be clear and convincing evidence brought forward. Not beyond a reasonable doubt as you would have in a criminal case, but something between preponderance and beyond a reasonable doubt. It's a hard test for you to be able to deal with. It's something that the board has done a very good job in, but you know, consider that when you're going forward, is that you're looking to take away someone's livelihood, so it's a pretty awesome responsibility that you have and it's one to be taken very seriously. The second role that you have is to act as the administrative tribunal for citations issued pursuant to 489.127, which is one like we had in front of us today, which contest was waived. In there, the group -- the board still does act under the administrative hearings act and still has to operate -- wait a minute, I always have to look back at the statutes section here. The hearings are conducted pursuant to chapter 162 of Florida Statutes, which sets out the way these type of administrative hearings are held and conducted. What Mr. Zachary and I try to do is make sure that the hearings are conducted in that fashion, that you do make the proper findings and that you go forward and make -- make an appropriate finding of fact on the evidence presented in those cases. In those cases, it is really the burden for the person who has been issued the citation to show that the citation is either invalid or that they've corrected what they were doing wrong prior to the time they come before you. This board can also find that even if they've corrected it, if what they did was irreparable at the time, that they can still have the fine imposed upon them. Page 35 October 15, 2003 The fines imposed by the statutes -- or by the citations can be converted into liens on the violator's personal property, all property, should they not lbay that citation. So while it's probably not worth the county's while to foreclose on a $500 lien, it certainly gets it paid when they go to try and sell their house and there's this $500 lien hanging on the house and I know I wouldn't write title insurance over a $500 county lien, so -- and there's statutory interest imposed and so forth. In that case, the board also acts as the administrative tribunal. The third thing that you do, and this is probably what we see the most of in this board, is you review applications for qualification of second entity, you know, licensees in the State of Florida can qualify as many as two entities, no more, and it is not a matter of right that they get to qualify a second entity, it's at the discretion of the Contractor Licensing Board. If they're state licensees, they have to go in front of the State Construction Industry Licensing Board. Local licensees, they can come in front of you to have that determined. What we've tried to do with the form that is submitted is answer -- have all the questions answered that the state requires to be answered for qualification of a second entity under the state law. You need to make sure that they have good credit, that they have appropriate control of the second entity and those are the questions that the board asks most often, basically questions getting to the heart of the issue, is this person just selling their license, because that's the one thing that people are not supposed to do is just go out and sell their license for a fee. They're truly required by law, and this board is very good at making sure that they do, they're really required by law to have control over the contracting operations of the second entity. They don't necessarily have to have financial control over the corporate operation. They don't necessarily have to have control over the administrative staff, but they do have to have control over the contracting operations. An example that we've used in the past is, you know, a U.S. Page 36 October 15, 2003 Homes or a Divosta has a qualifier. Well, certainly the qualifier for U.S. Homes doesn't tell Leonard Miller and the people at the top that -- how to run U.S. Homes, but he is responsible at the end of the day for all the contracting they do and all the construction that they do, so it's an interesting dichotomy there, they may not have corporate control, but they certainly have to have contracting control and that's the questions that the board does drive at and does discern. The fourth thing the board does is review applications for licensure that have been referred to this board. Most applications for licensure just go through staff. Staff reviews them, if they meet the standards set out in the ordinance, boom, they're done, person gets their license. Those that are questionable, be it for credit, be it for testing, be it for previous violations, whatever, are referred by staff to this board and then the board has to make a determination based on the ordinance as to whether that person should or should not be granted a license, granted a license with conditions or have other conditions placed upon their ability to pull permits, that they have to have this -- operate under the supervision of the board when they pull a permit or whatever, so there's a variety of issues there, but the board, in those instances, as in all of these, has to make a finding of fact to support what they're doing and this board is extremely good at making sure that there's a solid record put forth as to why a decision is made. On some of these issues, we will ask the board, particularly on licensure issues, if it's -- if it's a complex one, to make a full finding of fact and we'll issue an order on that. That is done periodically. The order forms will be provided to you when needed. The fifth thing the board does is review and recommend changes to the Collier County licensing ordinance. Periodically, it was done last year, probably be done again next year because we're still digesting changes to 489, the board goes through and reviews the contractor licensing ordinance of Collier County to see if it fits the Page 3 7 October 15, 2003 way things are really being done in current mode and if it comports with chapter 489 as it's been amended. Several years ago, the board held a whole series of hearings with specially funded contractors and general contractors and the general public coming in on a whole variety of issues regarding this ordinance, and those of you who are here, remember that we had a number of hearings, both here in this room and over in the supervisor of elections office reviewing the ordinance and looking at the fine details to make sure that things that were in there were things the contractors were actually doing, that new contracting techniques that were developed had a place in the ordinance, that somebody just couldn't go out and buy a license from a manufacturer to apply X, Y, Z coating or to do X, Y, Z kind of construction and say this isn't in your ordinance, so I can do it without a license. So the board continually, with recommendations from staff, reviews the ordinance and that's something that will probably be time to do in the near future. Those are really the five major roles of the board. Certainly I'm always available for questions from any member of the board, as is Mr. Zachary. The staff is always open to hear from you, but hopefully that will give you a little background on what the -- what the board does and what your role is and, frankly, how important your role is to the people in this community, so thank you for serving. CHAIRMAN DICKSON: Mr. Zachary? MR. ZACHARY: I really don't have anything to add to that. My primary role is to advise staff, so I don't interact with the board except usually at these meetings and to present staff's case when -- most of the times when the -- either the citation or the contractor is represented by an attorney and we try to present the case a little more formally as we would in court. Of course, we don't have the same, as Mr. Neale talked about, we don't have the same burden of proof and the rules of evidence are a little bit different. I mean, hearsay is Page 38 October 15, 2003 allowed. Obviously you can't base your entire decision on hearsay only, so -- but that -- that's sort of my role, when we have a number of witnesses or a number of exhibits that might want to be presented by the staff, to organize that and come in here with a case that's prepared to present to you, and other than that, I don't think I have much to add to Mr. Neale's presentation. CHAIRMAN DICKSON: Mr. Bartoe, just because we do have so many new members, brief overview of your department, who's in it, their background, what your case loads are and what you do? MR. BARTOE: You would like me to speak on that? CHAIRMAN DICKSON: Yes, sir, I would. MR. BARTOE: Besides the director, Mr. Perico, we have -- Bob Nonnenmacher is our supervisor. There are, underneath Bob, four investigators and three office staff, and in the investigators alone, I would say there's probably -- and Mr. Nonnenmacher, there's probably close to 100 years' law enforcement experience, so when we get complaints, we attempt to resolve them all without having to come before this board and people that have been board members for a while, I think know that. Occasionally we will have to bring a case here because there's no other way to get to final resolution of what's going to happen. CHAIRMAN DICKSON: And your caseload, how many calls do you all take? Most people don't realize how many come in. MR. BARTOE: The girls -- gee, I can't answer -- I can't answer that and they have been swamped. Our licenses all needed to be renewed, the old ones expired September 30th, and of course, a lot of people forget and if we go out to the outer office where the girls are to attempt to ask for their help for something, forget it, they're lined up out in the hall and everything else. It becomes a zoo this time of the year with the renewals. CHAIRMAN DICKSON: Yeah, my experience has -- and you'll get -- the longer you're on the board, you'll hear them talk Page 39 October 15, 2003 about different cases or you'll be called in to help them, but I'd say they resolve 99.9 percent of the cases so that they don't come before this board. MR. NEALE: It is surprising how few cases we see based on the workload of this -- of staff as they -- they go through an incredible number of cases in the course of a month. CHAIRMAN DICKSON: A bunch of retired detectives get the job done. MR. NEALE: And Mr. Osorio. CHAIRMAN DICKSON: Anybody have any questions of any of the staff?. One other thing for discussion -- gentlemen, thank you very much. One other thing for discussion, our next meeting is November 19th. The following meeting after that is December 17th. Very seldom do we get the opportunity to do this, but the caseload is down -- or any cases coming before this board are not present right now, so we do have the luxury of canceling one of the Thanksgiving or near Christmas meetings if you so desire. The reason we need to decide on that is so the county has half a warning not to tell people that there's a December 17th meeting, for example, that it will be a January meeting. Is there any discussion on that issue? MR. GUITE: I'd probably rather omit the November meeting because I'll be out of town. CHAIRMAN DICKSON: Thanksgiving. Anybody else? MR. BLUM: Both dates are far enough away from critical times that it wouldn't matter to me whether we had them. CHAIRMAN DICKSON: The only thing I'm being hesitant about right now on the November meeting is this issue we just talked about. At this point, I think the November meeting is quite important. Do you agree? MR. NEALE: Certainly there's going to be a lot of feedback to the board on 489 and the Jim Walter issue and everything, so the board may want to hear that sooner rather than later. Page 40 October 15, 2003 MR. JOSLIN: I was going to say, the Christmas holiday is a little more apt to be a meeting that we can probably do without than the Thanksgiving meeting, also besides the Jim Walters issues, so I agree with you. CHAIRMAN DICKSON: Anybody have a problem with not having one of those meetings? MR. BLUM: Depending on the caseload, I'd hate to see people have to wait another whole month when their livelihood depends on that decision. MR. JOSLIN: We could probably leave it open until next month and maybe make a final -- if there's a major case in December, then I would say maybe we -- MR. BARTOE: You could leave it up to staff, if we see nothing pressing, we could skip possibly -- CHAIRMAN DICKSON: That's the way I prefer-- MR. BARTOE: I tend to agree with Mr. Dickson to get November's going with regards to the matters discussed earlier today. CHAIRMAN DICKSON: Can you tell -- then we'll definitely have the November meeting on the 19th and you can give us a feel then for what's coming up for December and you'll make a recommendation we either have it or not? MR. BARTOE: Correct. CHAIRMAN DICKSON: Okay. All right. discussion? Do I have a motion? MR. JOSLIN: Motion to adjourn. MR. BESWICK: Second. CHAIRMAN DICKSON: (Unanimous votes of aye.) CHAIRMAN DICKSON: Any other All those in favor? Thank you, gentlemen. Page 41 October 15, 2003 There being no further business for the good of the County, the meeting was adjourned by order of the Chair at 10:18 a.m. COLLIER COUNTY CONTRACTOR LICENSING BOARD LES DICKSON, CHAIRMAN Transcript prepared on behalf of Gregory Court Reporting Service, Inc., by Heather L. Casassa. Page 42